No abstract

Global change and governance scholars frequently highlight polycentricity as a feature of resilient governance, but both theoretical and empirical knowledge about features and outcomes of the concept are lacking at the global scale. Here we investigate the structural properties of governance of global nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) cycles, two processes in the 'planetary boundaries' framework. We have used a mixed-methods approach to institutional analysis, integrating polycentric theory with social network theory in environmental policy and legal studies. We include an actor collaboration case study, the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM), to explore governance challenges associated with global N and P cycles. We set the scope for selection of relevant legal instruments using an overview of global N and P flows between Earth system 'components' (land, water, atmosphere, oceans, biosphere) and the major anthropogenic N and P perturbations. Our network analysis of citations of global N and P governance exposes the structural patterns of a loose network among the principal institutions and actors, in which legal instruments of the European Union serve as key cross-scale and cross-sectoral 'gateways'. We show that the current international regimes in place for regulating N-and Prelated issues represent a gap in governance at the global level. In addition, we are able to show that the emergence of GPNM provides synergies in this context of insufficient governance. The GPNM can be viewed as a structure of polycentric governance as it involves deliberate attempts for mutual adjustments and self-organized action.

To ensure sustainable development, there is not only a need to re-think how the economic playing field is structured, but also the regulatory system that governs it. Business and finance law reforms will represent a crucial element of such a transition. However, little progress has been made to date. The European Union (EU) business and financial market law have been analysed systematically in relation to sustainability to a limited extent. This study aims to contribute to this gap through a reflexive governance analysis of corporate financialisation in the EU business and financial market law. I identify ‘policy hotspots’ with the potential to advance the EU’s commitment to sustainable development. I use a mixed-methods approach consisting of social network analysis and semi-structured interviews. This approach allows me to perform a structural analysis of the formal institutional processes, complemented by a qualitative analysis that unpacks the potential of the identified policy hotspots. I argue that the EU’s action has a path dependency created by two major policy approaches that have informed the EU business and financial market law. These approaches build on the shareholder maximisation norm and an action agenda on non-binding measures. This has contributed to internalising the corporate financialisation processes in EU policy-making and seems to limit the EU’s ability to create sustainable legislation. While these approaches may represent barriers, the findings show that the identified policy hotspots represent two tentative pathways of action for achieving sustainable business and finance in the EU: the Sustainable Finance initiative and the Single Market.

The financial sector has seen a transformation towards ‘sustainable’ finance particularly in Europe, driven also by unprecedented regulatory reforms. At the same time, many are sceptical about the real impact of these reforms, fearing that they are triggering a paradoxical financialisation of sustainability. Building on recent research on institutional logics and institutional fields formation, we examine changes in the EU regulatory dynamics as characterised by shifts in framing the relationship between sustainability and finance. Deploying a longitudinal approach (2009–2019), consisting of archival data and semi-structured interviews, we explore the development of EU sustainable finance regulation as an extended, interactive and contested process. Specifically, we suggest that regulatory dynamics depend on the hybrid configuration of the social constituencies supporting sustainable finance reforms and on shifts in the overall prevalence of the financial logic in society. Our paper sheds light on the inherent contradictions and limitations of sustainable finance as a means for transformative sustainability reforms. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10551-021-04763-x.

No abstract